Frequently Asked Questions
v
Wouldn’t a big-box
store bring in additional property tax revenue?
v
Why would a
big-box bring in less revenue than other types of development?
v
What are some of the economic costs of big-box
development to the town and to residents?
v
What are some of
the non-economic costs of big-box development?
v
If SHARE doesn’t
like big-box, what type of development should Simsbury be
pursuing?
v
Why are some local
economists saying there is a retail glut in Connecticut?
v
What is SHARE’s
position on “New Urbanism”?
v
What is SHARE’s
position on the proposed Planned Development District (PDD) zoning regulations?
A: SHARE (Simsbury Homeowners Advocating
Responsible Expansion) is comprised of
A: No, SHARE is supportive of good
development. Good development is
consistent with the character of our community, has a positive net economic
impact, and minimizes non-economic costs.
The proposed Konover project does not meet any of these criteria.
Q: Wouldn’t a big-box store bring in additional property
tax revenue?
A: Yes, a big-box store would bring in
incremental tax revenue (The Town of Simsbury most recently released estimate
puts the increase in tax receipts at about $70 per
When evaluating development
opportunities, it is important to look at the net economic impact of the
project and not simply the increase in revenue projections touted by the
developer. A 2002 report prepared by Tischler & Associates for
Q: Why would a big-box bring in less revenue than other
types of development?
A: Property tax is based on the value of the
building; not sales or the merchandise stored in the building. The taxing base for a big-box store is
essentially just that; a big, hollow box.
Other types of development, including medical arts, office space, and
light industrial bring in significantly more tax revenue per square foot than
big-box retail. A town can earn the same
or greater tax revenue from development that has a significantly smaller
footprint with substantially lower costs.
Q: Why do many economists assert that big-box based
economic development is not economic development at all?
A: There are several reasons. First, as discussed, from the standpoint of
the town’s income statement, this type of development is more likely to result
in a net loss than a net gain. However
the economic effects go far beyond the net loss to the town.
When big-box based retail comes to town,
it does not generate any additional spending.
Area residents have no more income to spend upon the arrival of a
big-box, there is just another place to spend it. However a dollar spent in a big-box store
does not have the same economic effect as dollar spent in a locally-owned
business. A study by the firm Civic
Economics found that for every $100 spent at a local business an additional $68
in local economic activity was generated.
That $68 is a 58% increase in local economic activity than if the $100
was spent at a chain.
The reduction in local economic
activity has a multiplicative effect. It
generally leads to a reduction in property values, and additional increases in
taxes. These conditions in turn make the
community less attractive to business which further increases taxes,
potentially leading to a downward economic spiral.
Q: What are some of the economic costs of
big-box development to the town and to residents?
A: These costs include:
·
Infrastructure
costs (some of these costs may be passed on to Konover)
o
Road
expansion an maintenance – Hopmeadow will almost
certainly need to be made into a 4-lane road; this may require the seizure of
portions of property by eminent domain to do so. The state or Konover may pay for changes to
Hopmeadow, but
o
Sewage/draining
improvements and treatment
o
Substantial
increase in demand and already taxed local electrical grid
·
Public
safety costs
o
Additional
police officers to respond to the hundreds of additional calls that come in
each year from big-box stores (of the $1,024 per square costs cited above, $629
went to police, meaning the increase in police costs alone could offset more
than all of the additional tax revenue)
o
Significant
fire-related expenditures
§
Supplementing
the volunteer fire department with a paid fire department
§
Purchase
of special equipment (e.g. $20,000 extra-long hoses)
§
Replacing
existing water mains with larger ones for proper fire coverage (inadequate
water supply is being blamed for the 2004 fire that destroyed several small
businesses on Hopmeadow)
o
Supplementing
volunteer ambulance with paid ambulance service
·
Reduction
in property tax revenue
o
from
residences whose property values have decreased
o
from
downtown businesses whose property values have decreased because traffic
congestion has made downtown a less accessible and enjoyable area to shop
·
Direct
costs borne by
o
Loss
of property value
o
Higher
property taxes
o
Increase
homeowner’s/auto insurance costs for residences near the big-box due to higher
crime rates
o
Loss
of personal income from failed downtown businesses – most of the businesses are
proprietor-run by local people; their loss of income will not be offset by the
lower-wage jobs available at a big-box
·
Opportunity
Costs – by squandering this unique opportunity on a big-box based development
instead of attracting business that would generate meaningful economic
development
Q: What are some of the non-economic costs of
big-box development?
A: These quality of life costs include:
·
Landscape
blight that necessarily comes with a big-box at the foot of
·
Increased
crime that invariable comes with big-box retail (do a Google search on big box
and crime)
·
Increased
time spent in traffic
·
Increase
in pollution
·
Safety
issues – ambulances need to travel on or over Hopmeadow to get to a hospital
from anywhere in
Q: If SHARE doesn’t like big-box, what type of
development should
A:
The town must actively court these
kinds of businesses. To do so most effectively,
SHARE would support retaining an economic consultant to determine the best
industries and businesses to target as well how to best approach them. Some areas to look at might include:
·
Insurance/financial
services
·
High-technology
manufacturing
·
Biotechnology
·
Fuel
cells
·
Film/television
production (thanks to generous new CT tax credits)
·
Medical
spa
·
Conventional
medical/healthcare facilities
·
High-tech
agri-business
·
Community
theater
·
Indoor
sports facility
·
For-profit
educational facility
Q: Why are some local economists saying there is a retail glut
in
A: For several years, the growth in retail
development has far outstripped
·
Through
the concerted efforts of town and the Main Street Partnership (funded in part
by your tax dollars)
·
A big-box complex will inevitable cause retailers on Rt. 44 to fail. As businesses fail, the after-effects of the
retail glut will cause a commercial real estate glut. Such an oversupply of retail and commercial
space will have one of two outcomes; buildings will go vacant creating unsafe
environments, or landlords will accept less desirable tenants. Both result in a reduction of commercial and
residential property values and tax receipts.
·
The
big-box itself or some of the retailers in the complex may fail. The Rt. 44 problems become Hopmeadow
problems.
Q: What is SHARE’s position on “New Urbanism”?
A: New Urbanism is an urban design movement
that was created in reaction to sprawl and aims to reduce reliance on the
automobile by creating communities where people can live, work, and play. These projects emphasize walkability
and are generally undertaken to revitalize distressed urban areas or in
creating entirely new towns or communities.
SHARE certainly has no issues with these objectives.
One of the 13 new urbanism elements
defined by Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk,
two of the founders of the Congress for the New Urbanism, is an elementary
school that the community’s children can walk to. The only element of the 13 to discuss
commerce states that “At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and
offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a
household.”
New Urbanism is about creating
communities. Konover has attempted to co-opt a popular urban design
movement as a marketing tool for their project.
Konover is talking about sprinkling a few apartments or
condominiums around a big-box complex, not sprinkling the shops around a
neighborhood. There certainly won’t be
any schoolchildren (design element 6) playing on any playgrounds (design
element 7). Urban planning semantics
aside, who do you know that is going to want to live
next door to any big-box store?
Q: What is SHARE’s position on the proposed Planned
Development District (PDD) zoning regulations?
A: SHARE is supportive of the PDD
concept. The proposed regulations, in
their current form, are silent on some key issues and contain some holes. Some of the major issues we would like to see
addressed include:
·
Oversight - No matter how carefully the
regulations are drafted, they simply cannot anticipate all of the issues that
might arise in complex, mixed use plan.
As it stands of the PDD regulations were to be enacted, a project would
need only approval of the site plan by the Zoning Commission. This removes some layers of review and public
comment. SHARE would support the
following changes:
o
Making
approval of the site plan by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission a
requirement for passage as opposed to simply serving as an advisory function to
the Zoning Commission
o
Holding
public hearings before the Design Review Board, Planning Commission, and Zoning
Commission before each body votes on a
proposal
·
Traffic - The only mention of traffic in the
current proposal is reducing the need for unnecessary traffic from within
the development. There is no mention
anywhere in the proposed regulations of traffic generated by a mixed-use
project. SHARE believes outside,
independent traffic studies should be part of the approval process with a limit
on the percentage increase in traffic that development in a PDD generates.
·
More specifics on the impact to nearby residents – the current proposal states that a
PDD project “will provide a logical and orderly transition from any existing
residential uses…and will not adversely impact the existing residential uses of
these zones.” We agree with the sentiment but believe it is lacking in two
critical areas:
o
What
criteria will used to be determined if a proposed PDD “adversely impacts”
nearby residential zones?
o
What
specific consideration will be given to the desires of the homeowners in those
nearby residential areas?
·
Size limits - there is no stated square footage limit
in the regulations. There is currently
an amendment pending before the Zoning Commission that would limit new retail
development to 40,000 square feet that does not have a curb cut to Rt. 44. SHARE supports including such a retail square
footage limitation in the PDD regulations.
Q: What can I do to ensure
A: Get involved!
·
Attend
town meetings where the Konover project or the proposed PDD zoning regulations
will be discussed – the best way to communicate what we want for our town is a
room full of people. If you get on the
SHARE email list, you will receive notification of when and where these meetings
are being held.
·
Sign
the petition on the SHARE web site in support of the 40,000 square foot limit
on new retail development that does not have a curb cut to Rt. 44
·
Write
letters to town officials that let them know you support only meaningful
economic development and that